Chapter 7 contains a variety of
useful resources. One that stood out to
me was the section under OPERANT CONDITIONING: TRYING NEW RESPONSES. This section talked about environmental
influences. More specifically, the steps
involved in behavior, which is known as antecedent–behavior–consequence, or
A–B–C (Kazdin, 2008) (p. 267). I have
quite a bit of experience with this concept.
Many paraprofessionals may be required from time to time to collect data
on their students. This is the type of
data I needed to collect for the last student that I was assigned to. Many of my co-workers would always say the
same thing to me when they would see me around the school with my student and
he was exhibiting his problematic or violent behaviors. They would always ask me if I thought this
was the right environment for him. Each
time I would answer the same; I was not qualified to make that decision.
I was one-on-one, or a dedicated
aide to this student, so I was with him throughout his entire school day. The only exception was his lunch period. I had my lunch when he did. I was provided with an A–B–C checklist to
record data. Every day I had to briefly
describe my students’ actions under the appropriate fields. These fields were categorized under three
sections. The first section was
antecedents. This would be what occurred
prior to the type of behavior my student had exhibited. The second was behavior. For this section, there was a list of
predetermined options for me to choose from.
These options included:
spitting, kicking, bolting, punching, and scratching, to name a few. The last column was for consequences, for
which there was also a list of options to choose from. In addition to each column, there was also
several time options. The times ranged anywhere
from one minute to over three hours. This
was to communicate the length of time my student exhibited a certain behavior. This student would exhibit behaviors ranging
from slightly defiant to very disruptive and extremely violent. There have been instances where a simple
redirection of tasks would lead to my student exhibiting problematic behaviors. “As
behavior is ongoing, a given consequence becomes an antecedent for the next
A–B–C sequence” (p. 267). There were
times when he would become agitated when anyone would redirect his attention. He started becoming more and more defensive
with redirection of menial tasks, such as pushing in his chair or raising his
hand before speaking.
Another interesting section that
really resonated with me, was EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION DELIVERY (p. 271). I think I was able to relate most to this part
of the text. In the past, my authority
has been undermined by co-workers in the past more times than I can count. Almost every time this occurred was when a student
that I was assigned to was given instruction from me, and then conflicting instructions
from a teacher. When this happens, it only
confuses that student even further. These
types of situations send a clear message to that or any student, that he or she
can choose the more desirable option that they are being presented with. In this dynamic, one person is
constantly playing the “bad cop” to someone else’s “good cop.” Another problem I have encountered multiple
times in the workplace is when teachers who do not set concrete expectations for
their classroom will constantly ask
students what they would like to do,
instead of telling them what they will be doing. “One
important antecedent to increase positive student responses is the type of
instructions you give. Research on effective instruction delivery (EID)
has found instructions that are concise, clear, and specific, and that
communicate an expected result are more effective than vague directions.
Statements work better than questions” (p. 271).
Last, I really enjoyed the section that discussed using TOKEN
REINFORCEMENT SYSTEMS for students for more challenging students. “Token
reinforcement systems are complicated and time-consuming. Generally, they should
be used in only three situations: (1) to motivate students who are completely uninterested
in their work and have not responded to other approaches; (2) to encourage students
who have consistently failed to make academic progress; and (3) to deal with a
class that is out of control. Some groups of students seem to benefit from
token economies more than others. Students with intellectual disabilities,
children who have failed often, students with few academic skills, and students
with behavior problems all seem to respond to the concrete, direct nature of
token reinforcement” (p. 277-278). I
am very familiar with using token reinforcement systems with students that I have
been assigned to and otherwise. I agree
with the information in the textbook. These
kinds of token reinforcement strategies should really be used on students who
do not respond to the typical types of reinforcement that most students
get. I have also seen the negative side
of these systems, in which students can become immune to so much reinforcement
that it almost has no effect on them. It
is almost as if they are not looking forward to these systems because they
already know that their chances of receiving tokens from certain teachers are
pretty good. They can also result in triggering
a special needs student who is prone to angry or even aggressive outbursts when
they do not receive token
reinforcements.